Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7589039" data-attributes="member: 42582">I read a post of&nbsp; [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]s' which it seems I misunderstood, which I took to imply that wanting dice to be central in action resolution is at odds with trusting the GM. And I disagreed and mentioned DW as an example of why I disagreed.That's then what led me to try to identify two ways of making the fiction of action declaration matter, one which is about (potententially) circumventing checks via skilled play, the other (which I associated, at least in broad terms, with DW) which is about providing material from which downstream fiction (whether success or failure, as determined by the dice rolls) can be extrapolated.When I do this - and whether it's just &quot;saying 'yes'&quot; or whether it's the result of a roll - I tend to be very overt.If it's a case of &quot;saying 'yes'&quot;, then it will typically happen in a very relaxed way at the table eg a player might explain that &quot;The imperial communication satellite will retain its data until an X-Boat arrives in the system and broadcasts the release/relay signal&quot; and we all just proceed on that premise because it makes sense of what's gone before, and provides a clearer framing for the checks that are coming than existed beforehand. I think everyone at the table can see that it's that player who is establishing that particular bit of fiction.If it's a case of making the player make a roll to see if it's the case, then likewise that makes it overt because of the framing of the check.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7589039, member: 42582"] I read a post of [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]s' which it seems I misunderstood, which I took to imply that [I]wanting dice to be central in action resolution[/I] is at odds with [I]trusting the GM[/I]. And I disagreed and mentioned DW as an example of why I disagreed. That's then what led me to try to identify two ways of making the fiction of action declaration matter, one which is about (potententially) circumventing checks via skilled play, the other (which I associated, at least in broad terms, with DW) which is about providing material from which downstream fiction (whether success or failure, as determined by the dice rolls) can be extrapolated. When I do this - and whether it's just "saying 'yes'" or whether it's the result of a roll - I tend to be very overt. If it's a case of "saying 'yes'", then it will typically happen in a very relaxed way at the table eg a player might explain that "The imperial communication satellite will retain its data until an X-Boat arrives in the system and broadcasts the release/relay signal" and we all just proceed on that premise because it makes sense of what's gone before, and provides a clearer framing for the checks that are coming than existed beforehand. I think everyone at the table can see that it's that player who is establishing that particular bit of fiction. If it's a case of making the player make a roll to see if it's the case, then likewise that makes it overt because of the framing of the check. [/QUOTE]

Verification